Don't feed the troll...

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

On 06/18/2013 02:22 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
> Op 17-06-13 19:56, rurpy at yahoo.com schreef:
>> On 06/17/2013 02:15 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>> Op 17-06-13 05:46, rurpy at yahoo.com schreef:
>>>> On 06/16/2013 02:04 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>>> Yes. Trying to start flame wars with Nikos is unacceptable behaviour. It 
>>>>> is unproductive, it makes this a hostile, unpleasant place to be, it 
>>>>> ruins the environment for the rest of the community, it's off topic, and 
>>>>> it simply doesn't work to discourage trolls.
>>>> The difficulty with trying to suppress such responses is that 
>>>> the flamers get just as much pleasure from having a target
>>>> to unrestrainedly spew their pent up anger and vile at, as 
>>>> the troll gets from simulating that reaction.  The result is 
>>>> a positive feedback loop.
>>> Well if asocial behaviour of one provokes asocial behaviour in
>>> others, you can't claim the problem is not the social behaviour
>>> of the first. 
>> Sure I can.  If you have a photodetector that activates a 
>> bright light when it detects a flash, you can blame the first
>> flash for the fact that the bright light is on all the time.
>> Or you can say that stray flashes are to be expected now 
>> and then in the environment of this system and the fault 
>> is responding to them with a bright light.
> But that doesn't make sense. Your photodetector working as
> it does, is just as expected as the happening of stray
> flashes. There is no reason to differentiate between these
> two in terms of being expected or not.

I was using the photodetector/light system as a emotion-free 
analog of the troll/troll-feeders positive feedback system for 
which you claimed it was clearly the troll's fault for initiating 
the feedback condition.  My intent was to point out that cause 
and effect are intertwined in feedback systems and it is equally
valid to blame those responding to the troll for the end result
as to blame the troll.  And, since occasional trolls are to 
be expected, one is even justified in putting the preponderance 
of blame on the responders.

>> As I said (and you disagree with below), I did see some
>> attempts to adapt his behavior but it is not realistic to
>> expect immediate acquiescence to every request made here, 
>> especially given that a lot of them were/are bullshit.
> I don't care whether it is realistic or not. If he can't conform
> his behaviour in a reasonable way, he doesn't belong here. It
> is not realistic to expect someone who is just learing to swim
> to survive a jump in the deep. So we expect those people not
> to jump in the deep. We don't tolerate them jumping in the deep
> on the expectation that others will pull them out. That is
> wat Nikos keeps doing here, jumping in the deep. And a lot of
> people feel it is time we let him (metaphorically drown). 

see "Drowning" below

>>>> I speculate that half of his "bad behavior" is simple "I want 
>>>> now and don't care about your conventions".  The rest is a
>>>> reaction to "we're the alphas, your a beta" attitude expressed
>>>> by many here and later, overt hostility directed at him.  He 
>>>> has changed some things -- his posting method, he's made an 
>>>> effort to understand his encoding issues, etc.'
>>> I don't see that much change in his style. He just admitted
>>> not reading help files (because they are too technical for
>>> him). So essentialy he is asking we give him a beginners
>>> tutorial in everything he doesn't understand without much
>>> effort of him trying to understand things on his own and
>>> without much appreciation for the time of others.
>> See my reply to ChrisA.
> Your reply doesn't address his unwillingness to read the
> documentation which was IMO rather apparant.

My reply certainly did address that and did so explicitly.

Now if you mean that you don't care *why* he doesn't want to
read them, the only thing that matters is that he doesn't/won't,
them we have different standard for evaluating people and I
don't accept yours.  To me the reason does matter as it affects
my evaluation of how they may adapt in the future.

>> My personal feeling is that he tends to ask on the list too 
>> quickly, but I suspect he also does more than you're giving
>> him credit for.  He seems to be naive (eg the password event), 
>> open and honest so when he says he has been trying to fix 
>> something for hours I am prone to believe him. 
> I don't care. In the end he is still jumping in the deep
> expecting others to drag him out. I don't care how much
> he does. Just as I don't care how much energy someone has
> put into learning to swim. If your skills are not adequate
> you don't jump into the deep.

see "Drowning" below.

>> I think his
>> approach to fixing is to try making changes more or less at
>> random, in part because he doesn't understand the docs (or
>> doesn't look at them because they haven't made sense to him 
>> in the past) and in part because he hasn't developed any 
>> skill in debugging (a skill that I think most everyone here 
>> takes for granted but which doesn't come naturally to some 
>> people) and which also accounts for the poor formulation of
>> his questions.
> I don't care whether he has trouble developping debuging skills
> or not. Just as I don't care if someone has trouble learning
> to swim or not. If it is reasonable to expect those skill in
> a specific environment, you are just rude if you enter without
> those skill and expect others to get you out of the troubles
> you probably will fall victim to.

*Drowning:
I can understand your feeling but being realistic (whether 
you care about that or not) it happens all the time and other 
aspects of society accept that.  Around where I live we have 
mountain rescue units to retrieve both competent people who 
have had bad luck and total idiots who shouldn't be outside 
without a guardian.  There are places the penalize the idiots 
in various ways but both the practice and the line between 
acceptable and unacceptable risk are controversial.  I don't
accept you drawing the line for me, especially when I have 
my own line formed by my own experience.

>>> In the mean time you and steve can just killfile those you
>>> think are just egging him on.
>> Unfortunately it is not a symmetrical situation.
>> Nikos responds only in his own threads and is more killable
>> that many of the eggers who both more numerous and respond 
>> in many other threads that are of interest.
> Can you explain how these people can egg Nikos on in threads
> in which he doesn't participate? I also don't find your
> assymmetry of much relevance. It is just happens how
> history played out. There is no priciple difference. In both
> cases we have people being annoyed by the behaviour of others.
> I you want to advise others should somehow ignore the behaviour
> they find annoying, you should expect to be given the same
> advise.

Those who are annoyed excessively by Nikos can (relatively) 
easily ignore him by filtering him and his threads and 
continue to participate in the group as it was before Nikos.  

However, those who aren't bothered (as much) by him and are 
willing to read or participate in his threads can not easily 
ignore anti-Nikos hate posts because they can't easily filter 
out those while leaving the non-hate ones and without also 
filtering non-Nikos threads.  (Perhaps there are newsgroup 
readers that allow one to killfile an individual but only in 
certain threads but I doubt they are common.)

Now its pretty clear that (in general) such hate-posts do not
serve to drive away their target and often increase the volume
and prolong the miscreant's stay.  So their main utility is to
drive away those who wish to participate in Nikos' threads.

While you may consider that a good thing, I consider it coercion
and an attempt to forcibly restrict my free choice.  It is also
the same behavior you accuse Nikos of -- being offensive to 
force others to do what you want.  If you want me to go along
with your proposal then convince me with rational arguments.

The alternative (for you to filter Nikos) does not restrict your 
choice significantly -- indeed you are exercising your choice by
filtering out what you don't want to see.

Another asymmetric aspect is that the cure you propose can be
implemented anytime -- if Nikos continues to be offensive your 
proposal is still available a month from now and likely with
more support.  This is not true of the alternate approach 
though -- you can't decide to try being helpful once someone
is gone [*1].  So if there is any doubt about the best approach, 
prudence argues for delay.

I hope this explains more clearly my mention of asymmetry and 
why it *is* relevant.

>>> But not quiet enough for some people. They hope that somehow
>>> punishing Nikos for his behaviour, although it may make the
>>> environment even less nice in the short term, may help to
>>> make the environment as nice again as it was before Nikos
>>> started his quest for spoon feeders. While reinforcing bad
>>> bahaviour provides no hope at all for that.
>> Unfortunately if Nikos is a troll as you say, the "punishment" 
>> is positive reinforcement, not negative.  And if I am reading 
>> Nikos right, he seems to be a "fuck you" type person: "if 
>> you're an asshole to me I'll be an asshole right back", so
>> again, "punishment" is going to be counter productive. [*1]
> It is all the same to me. I don't care much about what the most
> adequate term would be for his kind of behaviour. And of course
> he is too narcistic too realise he started with the asshole
> behaviour. And in my opinion he will continue to be an asshole
> as long as people continue to drag him out of the deep each time
> he behaves like an asshole and jumps in without the necessary
> skills.

Fine, that is your opinion.  And you may be right.  But I
don't find people who state with certainty what other people
will do in the future to be very convincing.  Nor does the
exaggeration, fact-twisting and emotionalism in most of 
anti-Nikos posts make for a good case.

People jump into lots of things without the necessary skills
all the time.  I have myself more than once.  I see nothing 
wrong with lending a helping hand when possible and I don't
feel qualified to sit as judge and jury as to whether he should
or should not be running a web site.  He says his clients are
his friends.  And after Chris' shenanigans, if they continue 
to stay with him, it is certainly their choice.

As for community standards, I think you should have more faith
in the participants here -- what will likely be effective in
causing Nikos to leave, is not hate mail but inability to get 
help here -- and that will be the natural result if he continues
to annoy people and, one by one, those willing to help give up 
and stop.  There is no need for you to coerce those willing to
try to deal with him to speed things up when you have the tools
to mostly ignore him.

----
[*1] This assumes your approach is successful of course but 
then, that is what *you* are claiming it will be.